![[---]](pics/colorsqu.gif)
In describing the recent presidential election to non-Americans in my department, I explained that every defining issue in the campaign happened before I was born: the Voting Rights Act, the Vietnam War, and Roe v Wade. This week, there was an election of equivalent importance, with 115 men who often wear little red hats. Interestingly enough, the fundamental issues of that election also all happened before my birth: Vatican II, Humanae Vitae, and the student protests of 1968. Following those currents, it's easy to understand the election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI.
I'm displeased with the selection, but I want to avoid most of the potential cheap shots. If you want fair background, I suggest this 1999 profile by the excellent John Allen. I could easily comment on his 1997 quote to Bavarian TV about the influence of otherworldly actors in the process, "I would not say so in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the pope, because there are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit would obviously not have picked." It is a bit amusing. There's his actions as a teenager during World War II, which allow some to call him the Nazi Pope. That's unfair. Yes, a fourteen year old minor seminarian did not join some resistance unit. But he didn't support the regime, he got an exception, and he deserted the army. I consider that fair enough. Also, there were far worse choices. Unlike at least two cardinals, he shouldn't be in jail for mishandling sexual abuse cases. Unlike at least two other cardinals, he's not associated with self-mutilating fools. Finally, Benedict XVI has a private reputation for cordiality and piety. In Rome, he shared an apartment with his sister, and he walked to work daily wearing just a cassock. He is nowhere near an evil man, which puts him way ahead of the victor of the other election.
Nevertheless, I consider Benedict wrong about his vision of the Church. We don't know each other, and he's far more accomplished as a scholar and theologian, but I would suspect he would find my vision flawed. If I was alive forty years ago, for Vatican II, we would have been on the same side, opposing the Curia and forces of no change. Our side consisted of two major factions, which John Allen describes as aggiornamento and ressourcement. Allen writes, "To put it simplistically, the touchstone for aggiornamento Catholics, the lens through which they read the council, is looking forward to a new kind of church to be fashioned by integrating the best insights of the modern age; for ressourcement Catholics, the key is looking back, rediscovering the tradition and living it anew." We often use the terms "liberal" and "conservative" to describe the groups, but that's not fair. Better Englishwords are Integrationist or Accomodationist, against Traditionalist or Hierarchialist. Whatever words, I am strongly aggiornamento. Pope Benedict, at least now, is strongly ressourcement.
Has he changed from the time of the Council? Some say no, others yes. I do not know his heart; I barely know mine. I will examine two defining events of his early career, both from 1968. (And as I write this, I wonder if God willing I still live 30 years from now, I will recall 9/11 as a defining event.) Most people know the first event, Humanae Vitae, as extremely restrictive, forbidding artificial means of contraception. On the contrary, the document was quite radical! For the first time, the Church put the unitive aspect of marriage above the procreative. Also, the document explicitly accepts what we would call "Natural Family Planning" or timing-of-sex methods. These were explicitly promoted only with Casti Connubii in 1930. I put some documentation in this sidebar, where I claim Humanae Vitae is a reversal of medieval Catholic practice.
Paul VI in 1968 didn't just let in a crack of light; he opened a door. This posed a problem. Many people, including myself, fail to see the difference between "natural" timing and "artificial" acting. This musing is not the place to argue the point, as I'm just focusing on the consequences. What happened is that a lot of people rushed through the door to artificial means. The great majority, I would guess, didn't care and chose from their own desires. Some, nevertheless, seriously studied and could find no basis for the natural/artifical distinction, including the majority of the commission theologians. Now, the Church had a position publicly opposed by many of its best and brightest. As you might expect, this caused problems.
More problems arose in Tubingen, Germany, like many other university towns around the world. 1968 was the year of student protest, theoretically at least against Vietnam but often expanded into general revolt. Often, the slogans chanted about freedom and liberty; sometimes they suggested more Socialistic (read Communistic) forms of government. Professor Ratzinger was affected heavily; at least one source reported that he was the victim of a sit-in. In any event, he fled Tubingen in 1969 for a more conservative campus. Neither event caused a radical shift in Professor Ratzinger's worldview; it's very rare for that to happen. Rather, the events illustrate issues on which we disagree, Dissent and Modern Science.
Let's take Modern Science first. The ideals of "Science" have been used to justify terrible atrocities. Young Josef had personal experience through National Socialism - normally abbreviated as Nazism. It appealed a lot to "Science", in the Darwinistic bent. Darwinists, as I define them, are immoral, in that they argue a world without God, or a world where humans can reach full enlightenment by themselves. Social Darwinists argue that strong people should receive greater priviledge and reward, and weaker people less. This contradicts the fundamental Christian concept of natural law, that every human has rights and value from the possession of a soul. When scientists advocate such positions, both Benedict and I must strongly oppose them.
Nevertheless, I am more optimistic about the tools of Science. Like many things, including my job, the tools can be used for good or evil. The medical revolution has changed the world. Western life expectancy figures are starkly different now than even 100 years ago, as different as the change between Christ's time and 1900. (Around Jesus' time, 25-30; in 1900, 50-55; now, 75-80.) The Printing Press lets us learn and study Scripture and theology. Electricity lets us read and talk more. Air Conditioning is pretty nice. Computers let you read this and me find all the reference documents through Google. These inventions have Evil uses too, but that doesn't make them Evil on the face. Also, my distinction between "natural" and "artificial" is much weaker. God gave us the tools to build things. God gave us the capacity to invent and reason solutions. Are we not supposed to take advantage of our talents? Whether things exist pre-created, or through our assembly, doesn't matter to me.
I want to find the good uses and improve our faith and lives. That is Integrationist, because I do not have inherent suspicion about modern thoughts and means, and because I state improvement as a goal. Cardinal Ratzinger, as a Traditionalist, does not have the same goal; he wants to preserve our faith and lives, and is more suspicious of the latest fads. We disagree. Not coincidentally, disagreement forms part of the other issue, Dissent. To talk about dissent, which I'm using in both the private and public sense, we must talk about change.
The Catholic Church has modifed teachings throughout its history. I would argue that there have been several shifts so large that they would qualify as reversals, including Humanae Vitae. I moved the evidence to another sidebar so as to not clutter the main point with discussions of slavery, usury, Honorius, syllabi, and salvation. If you haven't done the research, you can jump there and come back. There are also smaller issues of practice, such as fasting, song choices, and ways to receive the Eucharist. Or even, as I'm fond of reminding conservatives, married priests. The question is what exactly faithful Catholics must believe, and to what degree they can propose alternate ideas, what I call Dissent.
Some Catholics oppose the very concept of Dissent. To them, what the Vatican pronounces must be followed without question, both privately (in one's acts) and publicly. I've commented on them before, the pure Obedient, what the outside world calls fundamentalist. These people are willing to disregard their capability for reason and logic, worrisome at best and sinful at worst. Pope Benedict XVI does not fall into this category, but his viewpoint of what learned folks and theologians can do differs from mine. In 1990, his Congregation issued an instruction for theologians. The document states in section 30 that "If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments." This makes much sense, and I agree. A professed Catholic must start from a foundation of belief, and take the Magisterium [Vatican officials] seriously. After that, then the problems can be raised appropriately. I try to follow this instruction closely, for even though my vocation is not theology, I often take an intellectual approach. I hope you can see that in this journal, through links, including those from my ideological opponents, and the infrequency of pieces. It takes serious time to make serious examination.
We think differently on public action and sensus fidei. The document defines dissent as the public opposition to the Magisterium (as opposed to my Dissent definition, which contains private concerns and public opposition.) The document states in section 40, that to succumb to the temptation of dissent [public statements withholding assent], on the other hand, is to allow the "leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit" to start to work. Resorting to mass media or citing public opinion, even the Catholic public, is prohibited. I think that's wrong. In the thankfully rare case of evil acts or statements, I cannot imagine not speaking out, for that would be complicity in evil. In the case of perceived error, I'm not a big fan of displays, and I strongly appreciate the need to avoid scandal. I generally don't like stunts, and it would be very unlikely for me to support an unfocused wilding like Tubingen. But I cannot see the damage of stating and speaking in a professional capacity. To me, that's what the document states in section 11, "New proposals advanced for understanding the faith 'are but an offering made to the whole Church. Many corrections and broadening of perspectives within the context of fraternal dialogue may be needed before the moment comes when the whole Church can accept them.'" Sometimes that fraternal dialogue comes through media. Additionally, using public media opens that dialogue to all the faithful.
By all the faithful, I'm appealing to sensus fidei, the supernatural sense of the faith. I agree with the instruction; sensus fidei is not simply the opinions of the faithful. On the other hand, the opinions must matter for something. Cardinal Ratzinger has called non-ordained Catholics "simple lay people", and that's condescending. It's not surprising, since his vocation was German academic. Plenty of academics here at the University of Chicago, a very Germanic place, do the same thing. That bias, combined with insularity, influences the pronouncement. It minimizes the Holy Spirit in every Christian's life, and that's a shame. It gives too much deference to the specialists, ascribing too much power to Holy Orders. The controversy is in this lesson of mine: "The main lesson is that becoming a priest does not grant a lot. The man gets the ability to perform sacraments. It doesn't make him super smart. It doesn't make him a great leader. It doesn't make him a good administrator. It doesn't make him a great preacher. It doesn't make him a nice guy. It doesn't make him extra strong. It doesn't make him immune to temptation. It doesn't protect him from error." The same applies to the Magisterium, and even the Pope; while they are assisted greatly by their training, their office, and the Spirit, they are not fully protected. It takes humility to acknowledge the intelligence of others. There are many pompous people in my workplace who fail here. I have less trouble than most, thanks to my tendency of personal worthlessness, but it's still there occasionally. What about Benedict?
I greatly appreciate Pope Benedict's statements on humility, his media comments, and his meeting with people at the installation Mass. That shows a recognition of the issue, understanding one of his titles - Servant of the Servants of God. You might have noticed that I haven't commented on actions of the renamed Holy Inquisition. Many commentaries have been written by bitter recipients of criticism from that office. They say that criticism, or removal of the "Catholic theology license", is some form of violence. That overstates harm. Genocide, murder, slavery, sexual assault, starvation, market capitalism, those are violent. Furthermore, there exists a means to remove the harm, by labeling a person a professor of religious studies instead of the official theology. Repeating and obsessing gives the action more power than it deserves. Finally, I don't understand why that power shouldn't be there. The very nature of Dissent means opposition; I claim the Magisterium is not yet fully informed. I cannot claim authentic Magisterium teaching while standing outside it. Someone has to be the enforcer, and that's what Cardinal Ratzinger did.
On the other hand, the skills needed to be the "PanzerKardinal" are different from the skills of the Vicar of Christ. Benedict doesn't have the personal charisma of John Paul II. Very very few people do, and it would be an unrealistic requirement for any candidate. I once heard the job of a Bishop, even the Bishop of Rome, described as three things: teach, govern, and sanctify. How will he teach? I would be greatly surprised if he differed from John Paul II's line. As I've argued, I think this traditionalist approach does not take enough advantage of the good aspects of modern life. There are lots of poisons, lots of evil, and claiming otherwise is just stupid. Yet do we abandon everything, no matter how small, because of the evil? Scripture even provides an answer, with Sodom. Yes, that Sodom. Most people identify the sin of Sodom as homosexuality (Genesis 19:4-5), which is therefore also known as sodomy; but according to Isaiah (Isaiah 1:9-10; 3:9), it was a lack of social justice; Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:46-51) described it as a disregard for the poor, whereas Jeremiah (Jeremiah 23:14) saw it as general immorality.
In Genesis 18, the Lord and Abraham had a chat overlooking the city. The Lord had come to look, because the sins of Sodom (and Gomorrah) were very grave. Abraham asks the question, "Will you sweep away the innocent with the guilty? Suppose there were fifty innocent people in the city; would you wipe out the place, rather than spare it for the sake of the fifty innocent people within it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to make the innocent die with the guilty, so that the innocent and the guilty would be treated alike! Should not the judge of all the world act with justice?" The LORD replied, "If I find fifty innocent people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake." That would be enough for most men. But Abraham, in an extremely bold move, goes further. He asks if five less than fifty is enough, then forty, thirty, twenty, and even ten. Each time, that is enough. Verse 32 notes that "For the sake of those ten," the Lord replied, "I will not destroy it." Of course, since all the townsmen closed in on the house in Genesis 19:4, there weren't even ten, and the angels of the Lord do a number on the town. The implication is clear, nevertheless. I think the Traditionalist viewpoint fails to show the justice of the judge of all the world - not a good strategy for the successor of St Peter.
What about governance? For all his brilliance, John Paul did not focus on internal matters. He delegated much, to Cardinal Ratzinger and others, which led to some inconsistency, some problems, and some stalling. Pope Benedict could do much to improve this aspect. Standardizing the message helps the perception of the Church (even if I disagree with parts, I know what to disagree about). Also, there is an urgent need to restore the standing of the American Church, seriously damaged by the sexual abuse scandal. Multiple dioceses have filed for government bankruptcy protection, and many more are teetering. More importantly, the moral authority of Catholicism is greatly impaired. If large numbers of company representatives can't follow the teachings, how do the faithful? Hypocrisy greatly weakens the message. At the higher levels, if the leadership engages in coverup and denial, why should they be trusted? Really? If he follows his nickname here, with tough sanctions, Benedict would help the church. I am pleased that he reopened the abuse case against the founder of the Legionnaires of Christ (another hyper-fundamentalist group), though he had earlier blocked it.
What about sanctification? Here, the concept of witness is primary. John Paul reached star status, partially from that personal charisma, but also from strong personal goodness. To call him unfaithful, or hypocritical, or impious would have been madness. That strength, the Goodness, drew many towards the faith. Does Benedict have that Goodness? Only he knows, but early signs are promising, the personal reports and humility references previously mentioned.
When I was thinking of a title for this page, I had just looked at showtimes for Star Wars Episode III. Something popped in my mind, the original Episode IV subtitle, "A New Hope". It's hard to resist such a cool play on words. As I said, though I do not consider him the optimal choice (or even the optimal choice among the traditionalists) I do have hope for Benedict's reign. The responsibility of the office exceeds what I could handle, or what I could ever expect to handle. Benedict leads over 4000 bishops, roughly 400,000 priests, and one billion people. My personal prayer list has roughly 75 people on it, I'm not responsible for their salvation, and that's quite a handful. I don't know where to start with his figures. So I ask for his guidance, as Benedict has asked for us to do. Part of this faith thing is belief in extraworldly actors, and so I continue. May his guidance be forward towards engagement and the Kingdom of God.
There are several points here: the changing definition of marriage, sex during menstruation, and the documents of the Birth Control Commission. As for the definition of marriage, the 1917 Code of Canon Law stated in Canon 1013 that "The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. The secondary purpose is to furnish mutual aid and a remedy for concupiscence. The essential characteristics of marriage are its unity and indissolubility, which obtain a special stability in Christian marriage by virtue of the sacrament."
The 1983 Code has a substantially different definition in Canon 1055, "The marriage covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized." Those two canons are not the same thing. The documents of the 20th century - Casti Connubii, Gaudium et Spes, Humanae Vitae, and several other papal speeches - showed a large modification in thinking about the benefits of the sacrament.
Scripturally, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7, "Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire." Historically, many of Pope Gregory the Great's writings survive from around 600. The Regula Pastoralis is not official teaching, but a work of theology from the most important theologian of the time. It says "The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation," using the translation provided by this link. Thomas Aquinas wrote in the Summa Contra Gentiles that "The emission of the semen then ought to be so directed as that both the proper generation may ensue and the education of the offspring be secured. Hence it is clear that every emission of the semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible; and if this is done on purpose, it must be a sin." Again, not a papal statement, but it is impossible to deny the influence of Thomism in medieval and modern Catholic thought. In the Summa Theologica, Aquinas wrote a good bit about Matrimony, and he did also talk about the unitive aspects. Still, it is very difficult to reconcile Aquinas' thought on "done on purpose" with the methods suggested by Paul VI, since there is intent to avoid generation.
Rather surprisingly, my University's Student Care Center has a very nice introduction to symptothermal natural family planning, where intercourse is avoided during some regions of the woman's menstrual cycle. I'll also include the site of the US bishops for more links. Reading through, the university site suggests intercourse during menstruation. The USCCB introduction recommends against it, but does not forbid the procedure. This is very modern, since Leviticus 18:19 forbids approaching a woman having her flowers, and our friend Aquinas calls it sinful here, in line with almost all early and medieval sources. That sin seems to have disappeared from the penitential. While this may seem trivial, it shows the concept of change in sexual legalities.
The Birth Control Commission, more formally "The Papal Commission for the study of problems of the Family, Population, and Birth Rate", was originally commissioned by Pope John XXIII in 1963, and expanded by Paul VI in 1965. The majority, minority, and radical change reports of 1966 can be found at this site. If you are in doubt, or even otherwise, I suggest reading them. Nineteen commission members signed the majority, four the minority, and three the radical. The majority report uses the word aggiornamento explicitly. Reading the minority report, following their logic I cannot oppose tradition, Aquinas and others, and validate any sexual act where the participants have planned to avoid pregnancy by any means. This includes NFP methods, where the charts and symptoms are evaluated so that a couple can have sex but avoid fertility. Thus, I consider even the natural approach of Humanae Vitae radical. I claim both the elimination of the sin AND NFP (with emission while intent to avoid pregnancy) as reversals.
For an interesting discussion agreeing with me on the radical nature of Humanae Vitae and the flaws of the document, see this article in Latin Mass magazine. The author likely doesn't agree with me on the fix, though. (I'm also amazed they have a whole magazine. And the Internet. Those are awfully modernist.)
Jump back to the main topic if you like.
The Catholic Church has made substantial modifications to major teachings throughout its history. I would argue that there have been several reversals. Most prominent is slavery. There are many documents that oppose indiscriminate slavery, against particular groups or circumstances, and trade and trafficking in slaves, but no blanket condemnation. In the middle ages, Aquinas, theologians, and canon lawyers specified four conditions where slavery was licit, or "just". These were punishment for crime, repayment of debt, spoils of war, and children of a slave mother. I have arranged them in order of reasonableness. The first two are easy. We imprison people for life without parole. We can sort of understand debt repayment, although a parent was allowed to sell a child. Plunder from war is very difficult. We believe in prisoners of war, combatants and agitators, but the promulgations allowed Catholics to enslave all enemies - to use Nicholas V's language, "to capture, conquer, and subjugate all Saracens and pagans whatsoever and other enemies of Christ ... and to bring their persons into perpetual slavery." Another 15th Century pope, Innocent VIII, put that into practice, taking a gift of 100 Moorish slaves from King Ferdinand and distribuing some to his Cardinals.
Then we reach the fourth just reason, to enslave children of a slave mother. The great Thomas Aquinas held this as just, but can we say the modern Church would support it? More generally, in 1866, Cardinal Ratzinger's predecessors in the Holy Office gave the following statement. Would anyone in the Church make this claim today? "Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons (of the Catholic Church).Ê It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given." One can rely on word tricks to say that the official Catholic position has never reversed itself. The Church has always opposed slavery without any rights, or full "chattel" slavery, but its position on other forms has moved greatly.
There are a few examples of major shifts, or outright reversals. Usury, the lending of money at interest, is important to me since my work depends on it. For most of the Church's history, Catholics were outright prohibited from lending money at interest. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica entitled a question "on the sin of usury", as did many medieval penitentials (books of sins and suggested penances). The 19th Century Holy Office made the procedure licit, following arguments about a fee for the risk of loss and a fee for the loss of productive capital. Again, one can wriggle through a hole about "productive capital", and again, it's a tight squeeze at best.
We also have doctrinal issues. Pope Honorius I made an error, making statements that defended Monothelism (that the human nature of Jesus was subsumed into the divine). While not a magical "infallible" statement, later popes and councils condemned him as a heretic, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Then we have Pope Pius IX and his famous Syllabus of Errors. This document summarizes other encyclicals, most still make sense, and one can see the 19th century fights between papal and civil authority within. Still, again, would the Church today claim as an error number 78? "Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship."
Even on the biggest eternal issue, salvation, there has been a big shift. Pope Gregory the Great, around 600, wrote that "Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot truly be worshipped saving within herself, assserting that all they that are without her cannot be saved." Later, Pope Boniface VIII wrote around 1300 in Unam Sanctam that "we declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Eugene IV at the 1439 Council of Florence similarly said "Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.Ð But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unityÉÊ Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." Contrast that with section 15 of the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, "The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the chair of Peter." And in section 16, "But the plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place among these are the Mohamedans ..."
Jump back to the main topic if you like.
![[Home]](pics/index.png)
![[Stats]](pics/stats.png)
![[Me]](pics/aboutme.png)
![[Writings]](pics/writings.png)
![[Musings]](pics/musings.png)
![[Hobbies]](pics/hobbies.png)